/lit/ - Literature

>>23440991
This infographic has done more harm to it than anything else.

>>23440991
How ambiguous and vague the term "intolerant" is

>>23440991
All societies have to somewhat intolerant to preserve the status quo. There is no such thing as a tolerant open society.

Embracing paradoxical ideals is not healthy for society, so the answer to the question of tolerance is just to reject tolerance in the first place and not deal with this puzzle at all.

>>23440991
The interesting question is: If the intolerant ideologies have such a selection advantage over tolerant ideologies in the great game of history -- how lucky did we get to end up in a tolerant society? We live certainly in a tolerant one, right?

>>23440991
an open society where all folx are equal...

did that homeless carpenter just teach people magic tricks? NAIL HIM TO A CROSS, CRUCIFY HIM, FEED HIM TO A NEWT, WE WANT BARABBAS!

>WE HAD TO KILL ALL THE DRUIDS. THEY SAID THE N-WORD!

>>23441050
>>23441057
Meds

>>23441050
It wuz da romans dat killed jesus doe.

>>23440991

Making abstraction of what the supposedly tolerant society should not tolerate, what exactly DOES it tolerate?

>>23441066
>please help me, the great Merlin, master of magic. i've been trapped in this cave for ten thousand lifetimes... water...
>"LOOK, DIS RACIST CHUD WANTS WATER. EVERYONE KNOWS BRAWNDO IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE. PUSH THAT BOULDER BACK, DESQUARIUS"

>>23440991
Liberal democracy is incompatible with itself

>You want more tolerance? Respect my ideas!

I could not give less of a shit whether these bourgeois faggots respect my ideas or not. They are at war with their own minds, I am at war with them.

>>23440991
So anons want an intolerant society I see…would that still be the case if that intolerant society was intolerant to them?

>>23441106
Depends on whether the society was based (on truth, justice, facts, logic and ect.) or not.

>>23441111
Bro Nazism and Stalinism are based on truth, justice, logic, and fact

>>23441117
Yes, and?

Imagine the West if those intolerant of it had not been tolerated.

>>23441117
They are not. Therefore I would not be supporting them.

>>23441106
>so anons want colonialism i see
>would that still be the case if you were the slave farming sugarcane?
No. I like sugar. You will get it for me.

So obviously not, and I don't pretend to. I don't actually have to defend that idea, because of my fundamental intolerance. I don't have to try and justify myself with these paradoxical "if you kill your enemies they win, unless they're nazis ok guys remember the authoritarian personality we can't have another 6 million" mind games.

>>23441122
>>23441117
Also Samefagging tut tut tut.

>>23440991
No he's right, as a nazi I don't want to tolerate leftist intolerance and I think we should kill them all.

>>23441106
Society is already intolerant of us.
You can deny this all you like, that would be the socially acceptable and tolerant thing to do after all.

>>23441111
>our society is based on truth, justice, facts, logic
Lmao

So what must done in order to have peoples of different ethnicities, religions and political beliefs live together side by side in harmony? So many different empires, like the Austrians, got this right, but so many countries can't figure it out today? What does Switzerland do that America doesn't?

>>23441153
Did I say that. I simply pointed out that I would be happy to be the outcast of a society that is based on truth and justice. I never said once anything about our current state of affairs.

>>23440991
People really need to spread an edit where the left are the intolerant in this picture.

>>23440991
Not just about the philosophy of science, but overall cultural aspects are significantly different

FACT CHECK: Hiroshima and Nagasaki said the n-word. Therefore, bombing them was not a crime

>>23440991
Risk can kill you therefore you should never take any risk.
It's risky to not have an absolute central authority that decides what ideas are too risky.
People won't agree with the central authority.
Therefore we must kill all people, for safety, they could be Hitler.

>>23440991
My intolerance of you is predicated on your intolerance of me. If you were not intolerant of me in the first place there would be no issue. Solved.

>>23441179
Kek

>>23440991
>Popper, read logically, advises the Nazis to repress the Communists, the Communists to repress the Nazis, the liberals to repress both and both to repress the liberals. From his “open society” he comes all the way around to Hobbes, Schmitt and Machiavelli. Next he will tell us, in Esperanto, that “the earth is nothing but a vast bloody altar.”

>>23441160
Austria and Switzerland were and are 90% white and Christian, what are you talking about.
You will never admit that your multiracial commie utopia is impossible and will never come true. A left-wing black Muslim can make friends with a right-wing white Christian, but you will NEVER have a happy, functioning egalitarian civilization made up of 50% left-wing black muslims and 50% right-wing white Christians, they will always fight for power. Grow up and accept humans for what they are rather than dreaming of what they could be.

>>23440991
pooper is tarded

>>23441228
>You will never admit that your multiracial commie utopia is impossible and will never come true.
But what about the Bible?
Especially the letters of Paul.

>>23440991
I guess it works if you take liberal values as a premise, but I don't. For example, "tolerance" isn't why I would be motivated to not mistreat minorities. Nor do I approve of "the law".

only insofar as you persist in the fundamental idea of liberalism taken to its extreme, the worship and "cultivation"(as paradoxical as it may be) of entropy, the leveling of every single mountain, hill or even small mound as founding principle

>>23440991
Popper doesn't realize that if you're allowed to be intolerant to people that are intolerant then everybody will claim that his adversaries are intolerant. Which is exactly what happens.

>>23441140
But would you be okay if it’s was intolerant against your race, creed, religion, and not your intolerance?

>in b4 society is intolerant against white men

Lol

>>23441168
>an edit
Pay attention, the left are intolerant in that picture which is why it gets posted so much. The complete lack of self-awareness is what makes it great.

>>23440991
True tolerance has never existed. Every society has a limit. Any society that claims to be tolerant is lying to itself.

>>23441237
Im talking about reality and History not fairytales, that's precisely my point.
Anyway correct me if Im wrong but even in the bible the babbel tower seems like a warning agaisnt those utopia delusions.

>>23440991
"tolerance" is just a spook to force the masses to accept Current Thing

Why does allowing intolerant views automatically lead to the tolerant being destroyed? There seems to be an underlying assumption here that intolerant views are superior or at the very least more attractive and that tolerant viewpoint requires shielding and protection from intolerant viewpoints or else they will lose out, which seems bizarre to me. Like we have literal nazis and communists preaching their views on the internet, but that hasn't caused the modern liberal democracies to crumple, most people seem perfectly content to ignore them as radical crackpots.

>>23441294
Spengler, Evola, Carl Schmitt are also in the fucking fairytales, fucking chuddie

>>23440991
So let me guess... Palestine are intolerant?

>>23441283
Shut the fuck up retard I'm extremely tolerant.

>>23440991
It’s based on conflating the sense of tolerance as freedom to worship and tolerance as refusal to exile. Once you distinguish freedom of worship from property rights there is no paradox at all.
>Verification not required.

>>23440991
Popper is the intolerant one.
More interestingly he assumes that in an open society the nazis will always convince the majority of voters.

>should
lmao can't even escape hume, why the heck do people even bother naming these retarded paradoxes when hume solved them long ago?

>>23440991
The "paradox of intolerance" is just the friend-enemy distinction for liberals

>>23440991
It’s funny to see all the twitter marxists use this picture when Poppers thought his paradox applied to them just as much as to nazis

>>23441536
Life is based on hypocrisy, anon. It's impossible to cease to be hypocritical and go on living. Marxists who shill for total ban on conservatives and so-called fascists not realizing that the same means could be directed against them think that the eventual triumph of communism/socialism is so inevitable that it will win out in the end with or without persecution

>>23440991
The term 'intolerant' lost all its meaning >>23441009

>unlimited tolerance can lead to the extinction of tolerance
How is this not circular logic, self defeating and a double negation?

I counter your modicum of intolerance with my copious intolerance. Pathetic that this kind of 'philosophy' is even taken seriously let alone be the new mantra of the regime.

The leftists will cite paradox of tolerance to stop the rightoids from doing charlottesvilles and saying naughty things online, but they will start coping and seething when rightoids refer to paradox of tolerance as a reason to not take in so many muslims

>Most quoted leftist adage is a paradox

>>23440991
well it is true that poppers give you incredible orgasms
it is also true that overindulgence can cause men to lose their erections
so in that sense, it is one hell of a paradox

>>23440991
The refutation is that tolerance is not a virtue, and whoever claims to be the "tolerant" side is at best a retard, and at worst an evil lying hypocrite.

>>23440991
>TFW you get to be tolerant while being intolerant
This is the kind of outrageous bullshit only progressives could claim with a straight face. No wonder Popper, the father of modern bullshit, was the one who came out with it.

Tolerance is the result of one faction/ideology/culture/ethnicity being so dominant it can afford to indulge its would-be rivals rather than persecute them.

>>23440991

AND YOU WILL TOLERATE THE INDIAN AND MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS RAPING YOUR WOMEN YOU CHUD!

>>23440991
It's shocking that this guy has been dead for 30 years. I'd expect this kind of profound thought to come from some 16 year old Twitter user getting high and thinking "woah dude, society is crazy isn't it?" for the first time.

>>23440991
Every identity must deny its negation in order to exist. The problem of tolerance fundamentally arises from the existence of the other, which inherently differentiates from the self. How can one maintain a distinct identity when confronted with that which is not oneself? The key to true freedom lies in affirming both relationality and individuality, multiplicity and unity, in a trinitarian manner. Thinking in this fashion, the self is constituted through its relation to the other. This is what liberals do not understand and what has resulted in their degeneration. Wokeism, the end of liberalism, is the denial of relationality for individual liberation. I for the sake of I by the celebration of pride. Consent culture is also a result of this. "They" (notice the incorporation of multiplicity and the other into oneself) do not understand that liberation happens through communion, which is the opposite of the paradox of tolerance. Being together as one rather than fragmenting the one due to dissimilarity. So to resolve the paradox directly, the problem solution is to tolerate intolerance in a shared identity of communion. Liberals, like Popper, oppose totalitarianism by becoming totalitarian because they replace communion with a competitive dialectics between the self and the other where one has to win. Even winning presupposes another which is not a loser. See master-slave dialectics.

Read Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State. That book offers a solution to the paradox of tolerance. It explains the coexistence of multiple social and political bodies.

My nigga keith woods has talked about this in depth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIpnulgAcZA

>>23441729
>>23441731
this

>>23441624
>christlarper who's been sheltered his entire life has some strong opinions about tolerance
ok buddy

>>23440991
I think claiming that this paradox creates some kind of golden rule kinda misses the point. You run into paradoxes when your logical system is incomplete or flawed in some way. One should seek a more complete logical system instead of proclaiming silly things like "don't tolerate the intolerant". This is how you get things like >>23441729 >>23441731 . I haven't read Popper so I don't know if he explored this further.
I think that human relationships are a lot more complicated than merely "tolerating" one another, and that the Nazis were reprehensible in more ways than being intolerant.

>>23440991
There's nothing to refute— there's no paradox described. It's literally a demonstration that tolerance is not a virtue.

>>23442558
Neither is hate.

>>23442561
who said it was, nigger?

What people mix up is imperialism and intolerance like the two go together with each other, wich is sort of true in that imperialism is many times justified with an intolerance towards some other people. But what is not tolerated about those other people? That they are backwards, technically and socially, that they should open their borders and let consumer ware inside their countries and PROGRESS! That's how imperialism has been justified for the last 400 years, and the libs who 400 years ago argued for conquering some backwards African villages because they live in primitivity are the same libs who today call for the importation of foreign cultures while complaining about the 'imperialism' of the past!
How do people look over something so basic? Societies of the modern age are tolerant because we are in the Imperial age. No borders all cultures! Is the status quo of every single imperial society that has ever existed.
Being against tolerance is standing against imperialism. This statement might make the libshits seethe, but they are the ones promoting imperialism. Tolerance is imperialism. All imperial societies of history were tolerant, simply out of necessity, you can't rule over a gorillion cultures and not tolerate other cultures. Oppress the freedom of the people, exploit them economically, enforce some made up values about tolerance here and there, sure, but being intolerant of other cultures in general? No imperial state has ever been able of such a task, simply because it is impossible.

Tolerance is a function of mercy. There is no inherent implication that "tolerance" somehow translates to "an absence of discipline", "an absence of prejudice", or even "an absence of intolerance." It is entirely possible to be tolerant of something or somebody, and not something or somebody else. Similarly, it's considered virtuous to extend tolerance to the deserving (as well as have some good sense of judgment as to properly determine what is worthy of tolerance) without ceasing to exist because you tolerated something that would lead to your doom. We tolerate things in order to show mercy to them. We believe they can become good somehow. Tolerance is also a conscious act, so merely ignoring something or quietly hoping it goes away isn't really tolerance.

As for the OP comic, it's simply pilpul to justify ideological bias. The message it would like you to inherently default to (and thus accept) is
>the Nazis were intolerant
when we may open any history book and see them praising something called "volkism", or coming up with all sorts of theories that added to the concept of an aryan-descendent people. Then everyone else who didn't qualify (such as sinos, africans, etc.) were invited to stay wherever they live and build up that same idea of volkism.

What were the nazis intolerant of? Communists, Weimar politicians and jews, who at the time occupied virtually every high position in Germany when it came to entertainment, finance, government and communism. They would have ousted Karl Popper using his own logic because he was a spineless, godless liberal-democrat.

>>23440995
And that’s a good thing.